05/31/2009

The normal perceived communication model in management is top-down. We listen to those above us, summarize, then broadcast to the people on our team. Occasionally, top management has a question, we pass that question to our people, get an answer, then pass it back up the chain. Overall, the flow is 90% down, 10% up.

Until a crisis.

During a crisis (disaster, end of financial year, quarter-close, sudden drop in sales, contract termination threat, etc) the model flips around. Instead of a conduit down, managers must become an efficient conduit UP.

Senior people both inside your management chain, and in other organizations, need a single source of truth for what is going on in your organization. They expect that you will quickly pull information from your teams, condense it, validate accuracy, then communicate it in a tight, coherent form devoid of emotion or unnecessary editorial comment.

In the military, we called the ability to do this "Military Bearing" - and you can see it in pilots, surgeons and other people who truly do life and death jobs.

Now, in contracts, nobody is going to die. That said, our work can mean life and death for organizations and careers. So, there are things we can borrow from this model that will improve your ability to handle a sudden reversal in the flow of communication.

(1) Plan. Not all shifts in the communication model are sudden. Some happen every month, quarter, or year. Plan in advance how information will flow, document a process for updating status, build in confidence tests to ensure the information flowing is correct. The more you can do in advance, the less you will have to think about when things get hot. Communicating about communication during a crisis is difficult, because people may not be listening while under stress!

(2) Breathe. Too many people start to rush, particularly when time gets short. Pause that extra second to allow your speech to sound measured, unruffled. For negotiators, imagine the other side just revealed a surprise point, treat this the same way. Pause, think, breathe, then react. Also, sounding unruffled increases other people's confidence - and that is

(3) Know which sources to trust, and how far. Rumor during a crisis continually finds its way into the stream. Know the definitive source of the information you need, and only trust that source.

(4) Go visual. Many people make the mistake of staying with verbal communications. A status board that is constantly updated and trustworthy is worth its weight in gold. People don't have to wait to get their answer, they know what they need, and might be able to get it without interrupting your team.

(5) Understand the executive's next step. If you are being asked for data that the executive needs to put into a spreadsheet, don't send her your input in a Powerpoint file! Send it in the spreadsheet so she can point, click, communicate. The more she has to do with your input, the less value you are adding to the communication stream.

(6) Contingency-planning is crucial. What if the networks are down, phones out, building locked, or critical people drop out of the loop? In simulations, I always identify the key actors during the first 30 minutes, then take them out of the loop.

(7) Practice. If it is something really important, it is worth the time & money to walk through it when the pressure is off.

(8) Trust is key. If you are the kind of manager who does not build strong direct reports, or punishes people who speak up in a way you don't like, then you are doomed when the communications flow reverses. People will only tell you good news, shade the bad, or do anything to avoid you when you need them the most.

(9) Be ready for the flow to flip back. Executive priorities change, they have more critical problems come up, or the crisis passes. You and your teams need to be ready for you to stop being a switchboard, and go back to leading.

(10) Get to the point. This is no time for elaborate detail, "I told you so" or snide remarks about what caused the situation. The critical thing is to get through the storm, you can argue about who forgot the umbrella on the other side...

05/11/2009

There is always a Patton quote to get you moving. Maybe not always in the right direction, but moving nonetheless!

People who know me will tell you that I am always suspicious of instant consensus. When there is similar thinking without discussion...

...the Political Scientist in me thinks, "Well, the fix is in... somebody set this up before the meeting"

...the Negotiator in me thinks, "Is there any point in using my capital to bring up new ideas?"

...the Management Consultant in me thinks, "Well, this seems efficient, or is it just that everyone has lost interest?"

The point of leadership is to listen, take in all of the viewpoints, then make a decision. You will not make everyone happy, ever. That said, people you listen to will respect the fact that you heard their opinion. If you ignore people, that is where trouble starts...

Introduction

Francis Handerhan is a Contracts Director with Oracle Corporation, 2nd largest IT software Corporation globally. Francis has been involved in managing Shared Service Centers for six years. Francis has acquired significant experience working with Corporate Governance, Revenue Recognition, Sarbanes Oxley and Audit policies & requirements, which govern the IT industry. From the experience gained in Centers in Australia (serving Asia Pacific), Romania (Europe) and most recently Costa Rica (North and Latin America), Francis has noticed certain similarities amongst the different Centers. The experience and employees may have different culture influence, but the Shared Service Center culture is unique to itself, not to the country the center is located in.

One of the unique aspects to the off-shored Center is discussed below.

This post was originally published in June, 2008.

Proactive v Reactive Time Management

When working in or with an offshore center, you may be party to discussions on understanding and respecting cultural diversity. Celebrate our differences, as it were! Appreciating and celebrating cultural differences is a healthy and positive step in a Center’s development but what everyone working with a Center should understand is the Center’s own culture and environment. Whilst supporting business across four continents in three different centers, I have noticed one constant within the Center environment. As many corporations, especially in the IT industry, are driven on a quarterly cycle the employees supporting this business are conditioned to become firefighters. By firefighters, we refer to those brave individuals who can jump into a deal mid-flight and assist navigating the deal safely towards closure. Or the classic quarter end push, where Companies execute the bulk of their business at month end (do not forget reporting is due as well), which reinforces the fire fighting mentality and encourages reactive behavior.

As part of a Senior Management team, I find it a waste that during weeks 2 through 5, I see lots of web surfing, YouTube, chatting and extended coffee breaks. I don’t mind a little down time as my team’s put forth extra-ordinary efforts, but like most things in life, down time is best in moderation. When I discuss the use of time with my teams they point out that the business has slowed after the close and there is little to do. My response to this is perfect! We have ample time for training and debriefing!

The question I ask is, ‘How do we go about a paradigm shift from the reactive mindset to proactive one?’ One answer to this question is in how we plan and execute our time in the Shared Service Centers. There is significant benefit from working within a quarterly cycle. Time management wins handsomely if the weeks of the quarter are managed properly. Instead of the 3-month accounting period, look at the quarter as a twelve-week accounting period. An example of well-planned and executed time over a twelve-week quarter would be the following:

Approaching a project or set of trainings from a weekly view can allow for better visualization and in turn, realization of your plans. This is also quite helpful when planning employee leave as well as time in lieu.

If able to realize a paradigm shift, a few achievements a Center might celebrate are:

Employees will have more transparency to assist in their understanding, which will encourage acceptance and buy-in to the quarterly plan.

The use of the Debrief Strategy in weeks two & three will:

Eliminate communication and data errors from the future

Identify ‘low hanging fruit’ to immediately fix.

Gives an active voice to all participants of teams and LOBs

Employees will find better use of training in weeks four through seven, thus preparing them for execution when business requires.

Time, along with our employees, represent two of the greatest resources a company possesses. Considering that the time management issue presented above impacts both of these precious resources, Management teams leading a Center should review the day-to-day running of their operations and ask if time is being used the most effective way possible throughout their business cycles. And if the answer is that the Center can be more effective (and let’s be honest, all Centers have room for improvement) it is time to review the use of each hour, day and week.

04/21/2009

Accelerating a contracting process usually benefits the side that is more prepared.

At least in terms of getting the best of the deal.

Think it through, if we know what we want, understand the risks, and are able to balance them against offsetting rewards or mitigation factors - what sense is there in delay?

On the other hand, when we don't know what we want (or, worse, a committee is trying to figure that out), don't know the risks, and need to think all of the offsets and mitigating factors through each time - delay is our friend.

The sad thing about this is that it is really the same terms being negotiated each time. The IACCM's top 10 most negotiated terms list remains about the same every year. As that is the case, your company has seen the most frequent challenges to your indemnification provision. You've heard all of the variables about Payment, and there are only so many business variables that surround most of your sales-side deals...

Face it, there really are only so many ways to intelligently re-draft the ownership of IP resulting from a services deal.

So why does increasing deal complexity bedevil most contracts organizations?

Poor documentation - we don't know what the primary and all allowable fallbacks are because there is no really easy way to look them up.

Poor metrics - how often does fallback #7 work? If you don't know, you aren't managing your terms, they are managing you.

Poor communication - with the average tenure in the profession over 8 years, many contracts people see no need to talk to their peers. This can be disastrous in widely scattered companies where hallway conversations between contracts & sourcing staff are extremely rare.

Pressure to accelerate in the absence of the above...

The last one is most damning. We've all fallen prey to the TAT metric inside contracts groups. "If we turn it faster, they will love us." This can be a fool's errand unless the tools (and more importantly the desire) exists to understand each deal individually, as well as how they fit into the portfolio of all deals.

Accelerating once you have 80%+ of the variables understood is easy. Until then, you aren't accelerating, you are cutting corners and calling it efficiency.

04/02/2009

A 40-year contract negotiator taught me that the only difference between negotiation and bargaining was the dollar value of the deal.

We feel the need to 'negotiate' when the deal is highly visible, and when various parties around the deal (consultants, approvers, reviewers, sub-contractors) force a complex web of decision onto the deal. As a result, extensive coordination is necessary, because in the modern business climate, nobody is empowered to make a decision alone.

Bargaining is much less restrictive. You negotiate by arguing for days over the wording of a clause, you bargain when it is time to sign the deal, and a few last things haven't been decided.

It's bargaining when we say, "Look, if you give me X that I want, I will give you Y that you want."

It is negotiation when we say "The Industry Best Practice around that is to do X, you know, the thing that I want." By the way, this happens so often that I spent a fun twenty minutes on Wikipedia rooting through all of their very cool posts on logic to find Argumentum ad populum which is really what we are up to when we use the 'industry best practice' approach.

Now, there is a place for negotiation and bargaining. But where many people in the profession go wrong is by using one or the other, exclusively.

Think about bargaining without negotiation - doing deals with no review, controls or assurance that either party can actually deliver.

Negotiation without bargaining leads to deals that get bogged down for months in trench warfare between competing groups of experts.

The 40-year negotiator who mentored me was a master of knowing when to negotiate, and when to bargain. For the last few years, I've worked with outsourced, lawyer-dominated contracts functions, and our people were master negotiators, but struggled with bargaining.

I think the key is that to bargain, you must be in the position to make (or completely influence) the final call. You can do X for Y trades if you really control Y, and really have visibility to X. Outsourced (or even captive offshored) staff can be good at negotiation, but I question whether they should have the authority to Bargain. Bargaining is something that is best done by in-house staff, after all of the negotiation and administration has been completed.

In my consulting practice, I often find outsourced (or automated) processes that eliminated bargaining. The result of those processes just doesn't feel right to our clients. By re-mapping the process to re-introduce the ability to bargain, we achieve the desired look & feel, without losing the benefits of centralized delivery.

03/31/2009

One of the problems with automation and outsourcing (in contracts and elsewhere) is that it closes the door to entry on our profession. And that may be a good thing.

Ours is a profession where many of us spend years writing purchase orders, analyzing prices or serving as the coat-holder for more senior negotiators. I've seen this go far beyond 'paying dues' and sour some really excellent talent on the contracts profession.

The parts of our role that are exciting (negotiating, deal architecture, problem solving) are not learned by starting out doing the parts of our role that aren't as exciting (paperwork, transactional buying, governance reviews). This creates a gap, causing people in our profession to plateau way too early.

For a metaphor, let's go back to my Florida roots. Orange trees are horrid, nasty things. There are strains that are hardy and robust, but these produce lousy oranges for eating. The trees that produce edible oranges are very fragile. The solution is grafting. A tough orange tree grows to a certain age, then sweet orange branches are grafted on to it. Edible oranges grow from these grafted branches.

I often think of this when looking at a contracts organization... I know that after my first 4 years at the bottom of the profession, I was pretty burned out and bitter. Fortunately, I got to do 2 years in systems and analysis. I came back with a better idea of how my activities fit into a bigger picture. Grafting worked!

This is why I tell my early-career mentees in contracts to rotate out of their department for a while. Some don't come back, finding their success in other parts of the organization. The ones who come back have the perspective and informal relationships necessary to be trusted with the exciting parts of the job.

This one got me thinking, though, about the two (or more) sides to everything we do in contracts.

Unlike "pure" legal situations, there is a business opportunity aspect to the contracts process that attracts some, and repels others. People in the profession who hustle, and can see the upside to any situation, tend to do best working in sales support organizations for senior sales executives. Those who can see the downside to everything tend to do well in sales support, but working for the CFO or General Counsel.

Contracts is where the twain meet, and worse, where everything is written down, signed, and becomes legally binding. No more room for spin, so marketing professionals tend to see contracts as their evil, dark side (oh, and the feeling is mutual...)

People with an entrepreneurial bent often struggle in contracts, until they start to see themselves as master deal-makers. Unfortunately, you have to slog through a couple of decades pushing paper before you have the gravitas to do big deals, unless you pick a part of the organization where deal-making and hustle are rewarded.

)

When hiring a negotiator, HR professionals are shocked that the successful
candidate always wants to negotiate the offer. I've only encountered two
negotiators who did not come back with some sort of counter to my initial
discussion about salary and intangibles. I immediately moved on to other
candidates. If they won't negotiate for themselves, why should I expect them to
do a good job negotiating for me?

There are six challenges facing anyone hiring a negotiator. The fact that
they want to negotiate their salary is a result of these challenges. In order to
hire and retain the best, you need to understand the challenges, and modify your
hiring process to meet them.

Negotiators are rarely identified by their title or job description. They can
be sales people, contract administrators, business development or corporate
counsel. That said, if the job you are hiring them for requires negotiation, you
are hiring a negotiator, whatever the title.

Before working with Human Resources on your next negotiator position, have a
talk with them about the type of people likely to receive an offer, and what
will happen during the resulting negotiation. Better yet, bring them a copy of
this article and review it together.

Challenge #1: Negotiator Positions usually Omit the Word
"Negotiator"

It is rare to find the word "Negotiator" in a job title. Most jobs
involve negotiation of one sort or another, therefore most employers view
negotiation as an assumed skill and fail to mention it in the job title or brief
description. This causes problems in two dimensions: the recruiting process and
interpreting candidate skill profiles.

One example is the position of "Corporate Counsel" to a sales
organization. Most people reading the job description would never realize how
much negotiation is a part of the job. Corporate Counsel for another division
might have very little need of this talent. My favorite example from Public
Sector is the title "Supply Clerk," used to identify a mid-career
professional negotiating multi-million dollar intellectual property deals.

Solution - when specifying the profile to Human Resources or your recruiter,
use the word "negotiate" in the first line of the job description. By
all means, include it in the short job description, and detail the kind of
negotiation to be conducted in the long description.

When sending these job descriptions to the HR team, make sure you
specifically identify that these positions will involve negotiations. If you've
never met your recruiters before, now is the time to introduce yourself and
educate them about your business. If they know ahead of time that your
requisition will require extra effort, they will either (1) head for the hills,
or (2) plan to devote extra time and energy to the staffing process. Without
fail, I've found that the preparation pays off, and true staffing professionals
appreciate the engagement in the actual business need.

Challenge #2: Successful Negotiators are Hard to Identify

Many agreements specify that the terms, conditions, pricing and other
negotiable elements are confidential information. Beware a negotiator who is too
willing to share intimate details with you. They are probably violating their
current or former employer's policies, and you might expose your company to risk
by listening to them.

In this environment, then, how is a prospective employer to determine the
success of prospective negotiators? Simple, check their references - not from
the current employer, that will just be name, rank and serial number. Look for
names the candidate cites as past negotiation partners. Suppliers make for risky
references - they did business with your candidate in the past and hope for
future business. Customers are far less likely to sugar coat the truth. If you
are hiring for a type of position that only deals with suppliers, look for
internal customer references in past positions. In both cases, sell-side and
buy-side, look for peer references in similar, competing businesses.

When speaking to the reference, and you as the hiring manager are best
qualified to do this, listen for key phrases:

What the Reference Says

What They Might Mean

Very easy to work with.

We took
them to the cleaners.

Their team was tough but fair.

I don't remember the
person, but the entire team was good.

Very responsive, proactive.

They were
quick with NO.

Struggled with his/her internal bureaucracy.

May not have good
skills in managing internal approvals and relationships.

Some follow-up questions:

Did the candidate sign the deal?

Who was the lead negotiator?

Was the candidate simply part of a winning team?

How long have you dealt with the candidate?

Have you observed him/her on other negotiations?

Do you think he/she knew about your company before beginning the
negotiation?

What did you observe about how they handled other members of their
negotiating team?

Were there disruptions in the process? How did the candidate handle them?

Finally, do not be fooled by a lot of negotiation classes on the resume. This
can be a bad sign, as it may mean that improving poor negotiation skills were
identified by the candidate's management - who picked up the tab for the
classes. It may also mean that the candidate was a junior team member on a lot
of deals, but rarely the strategist or lead negotiator. They could be attempting
to use classroom experience as a gateway to more significant negotiator roles.

Challenge #3: Size Matters

Beware hiring negotiators from businesses vastly different from yours in
size. Negotiators for big companies have a significant amount of leverage, and
often struggle when shifting to smaller companies. Likewise, negotiators for
smaller firms can miss key opportunities to exercise the power of size when
working for bigger companies.

Does this mean you should only hire negotiators from similarly sized firms?
It depends on the ramp time between hire date and full effectiveness. If you
have a long time (45-90 days) to induct and train the negotiator, you can
broaden your search. If you expect full productivity in just a few weeks after
the hire, try to stay in the same weight class when screening candidates.

Challenge #4: There are Different Types of Negotiators for Different
Situations

So, if negotiators rarely have their skill noted in their job title, how can
recruiters identify people with significant negotiation background? To meet this
challenge, we must consider the significant variation in what the word
"negotiation" means in a business context. In recent years, the field
has evolved into many specialties, including:

Terms & Conditions

Deal Structure & Pricing

Alliances & Partnerships

Intellectual Property

Procurement

Sales

Public Sector

Outsourcing Services

This is where the long-format of your job description can provide clues for
the recruiter. Most prospect resumes simply state, "...negotiated $4B
contract…" without specifying what that means. It is unlikely that a
resume will break down the specific negotiation tasks performed; so your
pre-screening calls from the recruiter should ask for specifics. Specific
negotiation examples include:

"Negotiated contractual terms and conditions for $4B contract"
means someone else set the price. Dive deeper here by asking, "Was the
price a part of the negotiation? If so, who set the pricing and what was your
role in that process?"

"Led pricing negotiations" usually means there was a T&C expert
on the team, or there was very little give in T&Cs. Dive deeper here by
asking "Give me three terms of the contract that were specific challenges
in this negotiation. How did you approach them?"

"Organized joint venture to pursue a $4B deal" might mean that
there was no negotiation at all, simply project and personality management of
existing partners. Be very wary here, as many people confuse Relationship
Management with true negotiating. Ask, "Were the members of the Joint
Venture already under contract with your company? What were the specific roles
of each of the JV players in structuring the final deal?"

"Negotiated a $4B deal with a Government…" is very different than
negotiating a deal with GM. Not easier, just very different.

None of these are bad things. In today's complex business environment it is
rare to find a single person doing it all. That said, be mindful of the type of
role you expect your negotiator to play. If you lean heavily on Legal for
T&Cs, look for someone who is more versed in the art of the deal. If you
have very little support or process, look for a negotiator with some T&C
background relevant to the types of deals you expect to be doing. If your
company rarely pursues business alone, look for someone with experience building
alliances. If you find someone with a broad variety of these experiences,
realize that you will need to keep them challenged - too many of a single type
of negotiation and this high-powered candidate will get bored.

Challenge #5: Salary Negotiations are Run by HR

Now, you've navigated the challenges above, and have a short list of
candidates. You select your favorite and tell HR, "Go forth and hire."
This is the most dangerous time in the entire hiring cycle. Your staffing
department will review compensation policies, what other people in the same job
code make, and the earning history of the selected candidate. At that point,
they may or may not consult you, the hiring manager, about how best to present
the offer to the candidate.

To avoid disaster, communicate to staffing that before any offer is made, you
must be engaged and have a significant role in reviewing and approving the
offer. You have to prepare for this negotiation like any other, and if your HR
team is unused to negotiations, you have to prepare them as well.

As in any negotiation, finding out as much as you can about the counterpart
is key. Compensation can do this via background, references and credit checks.
If you don't have a Compensation department, put your staffing expert to work
finding this information. Do not, under any circumstances, do this research
yourself! Privacy laws are nothing to mess with; leave it to the professionals
in your HR or Legal department.

Once you believe you have enough information on salary background, ask the
candidate for a salary history. Many will refuse to provide one, but highly
qualified, confident candidates will not hesitate. Compare the candidate's
representations to the facts your HR team has unearthed. If they match, great.
If they don't, you may want to bring that to the table while negotiating salary
with the candidate.

Allow your staffing expert to open negotiations, calling the candidate on the
phone and saying, "We are ready to make an offer of $X." When the
candidate immediately counters, or expresses concern that you can "do
better," do not say, "We never negotiate." Ask for an unambiguous
counter (by email is best, less opportunity for miscommunication) that the
candidate would accept.

This is not an article on how to negotiate salary, but, here are a few things
to consider as you do:

Negotiating imbalance here
is enormous - the candidate is approaching this 100% personally, whereas you
and HR are treating it like just another business negotiation. This sets the
stage for deadlock unless you phrase things in personal terms from the
hiring side of the table.

Too many Staffing
departments fail to ask for a counter offer from the candidate after the
initial offer. Encourage them to do so. This sets the candidate's "Top End"
price. If it is within your means, do not simply accept it to be done with
the process. If you do, the candidate will think they did not ask for
enough, and may throw in unreasonable additional demands.

Use the same negotiating
channel the job will require. If the job requires a face-to-face negotiating
presence, this is the way to negotiate salary. If most of your negotiations
are done via email, do it that way. If you usually get neutral ground for
negotiations, find it for this discussion. If, however, you are always
negotiating on the customer's turf, put the candidate in that position. This
is your last, best chance to evaluate the professionalism, poise and
creativity of the top candidate - don't pass it up just to save time or
travel dollars.

Let the hiring manager say
"Yes," use the staffing professional to say "No," The hiring manager needs
an excellent working relationship with the candidate after they start, don't
let a tough negotiation ruin that.

Use soft concessions. Too
many people focus only on cash compensation. In fact, many HR departments
forbid "promises" to employees that aren't cash. Even in that environment,
both sides need to demonstrate creativity and flexibility. If you are stuck
on the last $5000, ask why the candidate needs it. If it's for a car,
education, child care or home office, the company might be able to help.

Challenge #6: Top Negotiators will Walk from Inflexible Employers

In this article, I've encouraged you to view the employment negotiation as a
final test of your candidates. The reverse is true as well. It is the
candidate's final chance to see how your company operates. Let's close with two
stories, think about the company and boss for whom you would want to work.

Sally Candidate has been through 11 rounds of interviews at BigSlow, Inc. She
is being considered for a Deputy to the Assistant Director of Sales Contracts.
She has not spoken with the hiring manager since round eight of the interviews,
and he is not returning her calls. When he did interview her, he refused to
answer any questions about the job, department or role in the company. The
staffing professional, Ed Stingy, from BigSlow offered a starting salary that is
only 5% more than Sally currently makes, and refuses to discuss any salary
concessions. In addition, Ed set a sharp deadline after which the offer is off
the table, saying, "We will just move on to the next candidate."

Think about Sally's experience here. What opinion might she form about
BigSlow?

Requires eleven rounds of interviews - This company thinks it is thorough,
but in fact it looks like nobody is able to make a decision. They probably
waste time the same way on other issues.

"Deputy to the Assistant Director of Sales Contracts" is
evidence of a hierarchical, title-oriented company.

The hiring manager, probably on the advice of HR, is totally disengaged
from the hiring process. Sally might think, "Wow, if he doesn't care
about me when he is trying to attract me to this job, he surely won't care
after I am working for him!"

Another problem with the hiring manager is that he did not answer Sally's
questions about the job. That probably means that he does not feel the need
to "sell" his team to candidates. This can be an indication that
he is weak at selling the team to other business units or power players in
the company.

Ed Stingy is playing hardball, with a cheap offer that hardly entices
Sally to move. This makes BigSlow look cheap, and probably indicates how
raises and bonuses work as well.

Ed's refusal to negotiate and use of time pressure to force Sally into a
decision indicates that the company revels in its power. They probably
negotiate with customers and vendors the same way.

Now, let's look at a different story.

Sally is also considering an offer from UtopiaSoft. The contrast with BigSlow
couldn't be more obvious. UtopiaSoft made an offer after two rounds of
interviews. The hiring manager, Cindy Stellar, flew to Sally's hometown to talk
over the package at the corner Starbuck's. The opening offer was generous, 15%
higher than Sally's current compensation, but some of it is at risk, based on
meeting sales targets. The only time Sally has dealt with anyone other than
Cindy is when she asked for something (a company car) that Cindy did not have
the authority to authorize. Cindy has expended a lot of effort showing off her
company, department and this job to Sally. It is obvious that Cindy is proud of
what she does, and while she hopes Sally will join the team, she said, "If
we aren't able to reach agreement now, let's leave the door open and talk again
in a year or two."

Two rounds, then an offer - UtopiaSoft does not waste any time; they
decide things quickly and efficiently.

The manager really cares about getting Sally on the team, otherwise why
would she come to Starbucks? This makes the company look like they will be
as customer-focused in their negotiations.

While the offer is generous, Sally has to stretch to earn it. This
indicates that UtopiaSoft is focused on rewarding star performers.

Sally respects Cindy because she obviously has the "juice" to
negotiate on behalf of UtopiaSoft. This bodes well for the future working
relationship.

Finally, Cindy eliminates the high pressure sell by offering a long-term
relationship. Things may not work today, but Cindy demonstrates confidence
that they will eventually. This is a great demonstration of relationship
selling that communicates something about UtopiaSoft's corporate culture.

Conclusion

These six challenges often appear insurmountable. This is because they can
only be overcome with advance planning, great communication, and a lot of
effort. When the candidate opens negotiations, it is usually too late to begin
education of the HR team. Every stellar negotiator can be counted upon to
negotiate their next job. If your company wants to hire and retain the best,
while preventing a crisis every time you hire a negotiator, make this
negotiation a desirable part of the hiring cycle.

Caveat: The organization model discussed here is a SAMPLE. Every contracts group is different, and the following should be viewed as a process for determining the right mix, not a prescription for a complete contract organization!

Organizational
transformation is a tough, thankless exercise. When you attempt to transform a
group of lawyers, negotiators, administrators and project managers – well, you
might as well paint a large target on your chest before even getting started.

This article
presents how to execute transformation in a contracts group (sales or
procurement) by recognizing some tough realities, making tough decisions, and
using existing HR and other tools to execute the basics of change.

This article
does not talk about what you should change; it charts how to set change in
motion.

Oh, and as for
that target, may I suggest red and white paint?

#1: Assess the
Impact of Automation & Outsourcing

In the last 15
years, the Contracting professions (procurement, sales & counsel) changed
substantially. The role of automation (reverse auctions, source selection,
procurement streamlining) drove many simple, repetitive tasks out of the
profession and into computers.

Example - A
Multi-year Deployment of Procurement Automation Software

During the
deployment, the classic procurement skill sets continued to form the
basis for hiring & promotion. People with deep commodity knowledge,
solid relationships with suppliers, and an understanding of day-to-day
operations in manufacturing are well compensated primarily due to their
seniority with the company.

Then, in the
space of a single quarter, the system comes on line, and commodity
procurement is largely handled via automation.

What happens
now?

In about three
months, all of the seniority in the department is flipped on its head.
Suddenly, the new hires with technological and negotiating expertise are
as valuable as the experienced hands with deep commodity knowledge and
solid relationships.

As a leader,
though, it is very difficult (politically and emotionally) to flip the
department around to reflect the new reality. So reorganization happens
slowly, if at all. The senior people end up in manager or
consultant-type positions, and the department ends up with a reputation
for “deadwood” in expensive, senior levels.

The next 10
years will witness a similar impact at the middle level of the profession, as
mid-level repetitive tasks involving some judgment are automated or sent to outsourcing
centers around the world.

These changes
are real, but they tend to build over time. The small changes then reach a
tipping point and big changes happen all at once. As a result, the skill sets
necessary to run your department may change, substantially, in a very short
time.

Think it can
only happen in procurement? Another example would be a software publisher who
sells only to customers in the United States. The publisher merges with a
professional services firm, and suddenly services are involved in every deal. To
compound matters, the merger expands the scope of business to global customers,
meaning that the cozy domestic contracts must now scale worldwide.

The team of
people who ran contracts for a domestic, software-only firm will be seriously
challenged by adding services and going global. Compounding the problem, there
is substantial inertia in the contracts profession, meaning that people aren’t
necessarily going to recognize that perhaps they are no longer qualified. So you
try to encourage change, and put the merger at risk with a sub-par contracts
team that increasingly resists change.

These are tough
problems to solve, but the good news is that the tool to solve them already
exists in most companies with an HR system.

#2: Review Job
Codes, Classifications & Salary Structures

The job
classification system in your company can help you hire and retain the best
negotiators, if it is used properly. Start out by reviewing the current job
classification structure in place for your teams. Odds are, if your department
grew by reorganization and combination, that you have a hodge-podge of job
codes, skill levels, and pay grades. The salary levels for your teams may vary
widely, and totally out of proportion to the relative value added. Even if your
department hasn’t changed in years, the job codes still merit a close look,
primarily for what they can do in retention.

Roll up your
sleeves; this is bureaucratic, unpleasant work! That said, it is the fastest way
to transform your department while minimizing turmoil, avoiding conflict, and
ensuring that your decisions do not create a perception of discrimination or
favoritism.

There are three
considerations here: job definition, ability to progress, and impact on pay. If
there are four roles that 90%+ of your people fit into, why not modify existing
job codes and align people into them? Most contracting teams can get by with
four basic functional areas:

Now, there will
be a broad spread of grades, in most systems that will result in an as-is map
that looks like the following:

After the job
definition work is done, we need to reshuffle to address ability to progress.
Start by answering a few tough questions about your organization today.

First, which jobs are appropriate entry-level
points to your organization for new graduates? Do people learn things here that
translate to the other functional areas?

Second, which functional areas should “top out”
by mid-career (i.e. senior level staff in these functions do not add enough
value to justify their higher cost)?

Third, where do you need to allow for
high-level individual contributors to attract and retain the best talent?

Based on
answers to these questions, you may end up with a functional/organizational map
that looks like this:

In this
organization, the following logic applies:

Entry-Level

Automation
and outsourcing eliminated most clerical and task-oriented work. People
entering the organization need to have the education and drive to progress
to higher levels without extensive hand-holding by the company.

New entries
start in either acquisition (bids/proposals) or administration, this gives
them the seasoning and business experience necessary to progress. Ideally,
people spend time in both acquisition and administration to get a full view
of the business cycle.

At first
promotion, people can either stay in their current functional area, or
rotate to the other. There are also two other paths available:
infrastructure (building/managing the systems and relationships needed for
the contracts organization to operate) and people management. In both of
these branches, specific technical or leadership ability is required for
success.

By Mid-Career,
the expectation is that:

People with
a genuine passion for their jobs will continue to excel in their functional
area.

Burn-out
may start to be a factor, some people will rotate out of the organization
into parallel fields (legal, finance, sales, manufacturing).

People will
enter the organization from parallel fields, and need to be brought
up-to-speed on processes and skills.

Mid-career
is an ideal time for an assignment in Infrastructure, or formal experience
with people management.

In this
organization, there is little perceived value in high-level staff
progressing in Administration, this plateau must be clearly communicated and
reflected in lower pay increases and minimal progression.

Finally, in
Senior & Global levels

People
continue rotating out of and into the organization, but the time to come up
to speed for senior level people is going to be quite high.

Because of
salary differentials, some infrastructure positions in technology may start
off at this level

Senior
specialists in acquisition and infrastructure should have clearly defined
roles, and be viewed as peers to the Senior Managers in the organization,
that said, these specialists are not in the chain-of-command, this plateau
should be communicated.

An
excellent negotiator (Contract Acquisition) is not usually in-line to be the
next Director without significant people management experience coupled with
political savvy. This will come as a shock to many, and you will lose
extremely high-value negotiators to the competition. Address this by
creating a super-category (“Global”) for these unique individual
contributors. While they are not in the chain of authority, they outrank
senior managers and report directly to the Director or VP.

#3: Encourage
a Mix of 1st and 2nd Chairs while Avoiding Victims

To recap, say
you are in the “top-heavy” organization identified in step #1. The first step
was to recognize the changes that put your people out-of-step with the mission
of your company (as well as the current state of the profession.) Next, you
mapped the as-is and desired organization with job codes, plateaus and salary
caps.

Once this is
done, you now must communicate the expectations for each level to the entire
team. In the example, this would mean working out a plan with senior-level
people in the Administrative functional area, giving them time & assistance to
rotate into other areas. People who do not meet the minimum educational
requirements to progress within the organization are given encouragement and
tuition assistance to obtain the right level of credentialing.

While all of
this takes time, the clock is ticking on your organization, you must see rapid
and enthusiastic progress from individuals on the team, or move them out.

To this point,
our focus was on capability, now let's turn to ambition and passion.

An organization
needs a balance of talents to survive. Going back to my time in a concert
orchestra, I think of these as 1st and 2nd chair performers. 1st chair
performers are Stars, high-caliber
fast-track high-potential people who close major deals, revolutionize
administration, develop high quality infrastructure or consistently lead their
team to new heights.

All of this is
great, but an organization made up of Stars usually ends up infighting as each
person tries to get their share of limelight. This is where the 2nd chairs
come in. In an orchestra, or an organization, these are the people who deliver consistent quality, and are satisfied
with a paycheck and predictability rather than the limelight. This is also
great, but an organization made up of Second-chairs may lack the zip for
real progress, miss opportunities for executive visibility, and occasionally
devolve
into Victims if left uninspired for too long.

While an organization must encourage the
growth of Stars and Second-chairs, it must act to limit the growth of Victims.
These are the people who find fault with everything, complain incessantly, never
come up with an idea, and excel at tearing down others and stalling progress.
While the contracts profession has its fair share of Stars and Second-chairs,
for some reason it seems to attract more than its share of Victims. Even a few
Victims in a contracts organization will drag the organization down by impairing
its credibility. As a leader, it is your job to identify the Victims, give them
a road map to improve, and if they don’t change, shove them not only out of the
organization, but all the way out of the company.

In a sales
contracts organization, I’ve found an ideal ratio of one Star to five or ten
Second-chairs, the precise numbers are less important than the fact that there
is a mixture.

In procurement
organizations, one Star for twenty Second-chairs may be more appropriate.
Opportunity-based (sales) organizations value and reward the fast-burner Star
mentality more than risk-managing procurement organizations.

The ideal mix
of Victims is ZERO, but that is unlikely. At any given time, however, more than
one Victim per 50 staff will significantly drag the organization. More than 1 in
10, there is likely no hope for the organization without a massive change.

Other thoughts
here:

The fastest
way to turn a Second-chair manager into a Victim is to move too many Stars
through their organization.

Many
Second-chair staff think they are Stars, until they work with one. Then, a
Second-chair will usually demonstrate the professionalism and
self-knowledge to be satisfied with their important role. Occasionally, the
example transforms the Second-chair into a Star.

All Victims
think they are Stars, just terribly unappreciated.

Stars tend
to get bored unless they are challenged, recognized and promoted frequently.
Most contracts groups tend to value long tenure and predictability over
quick wins and popularity. Managing this dichotomy is the fundamental
challenge faced by leaders of contracting organizations.

Second-chairs must see a promotion path that does not involve Stardom. The
second-worst thing that can happen to your organization (after a Victim
infestation) is an exodus of Second-chair staff. Expect Stars to leave, but pour
money into retaining those Second-chairs!

So, to continue with the example above, assume
that every part of your team needs those Second-chair traits of reliability,
professionalism and teamwork. Sections of the team friendly to Stars are flagged
in Red below:

Rationale

Contract
Acquisition offers the pace, opportunity for recognition and promotion that
attracts Stars. Infrastructure is a good place for Stars who have a gift for
the administrative side, and a passion for automation, streamlining and
other quality initiatives.

Administration, with its need for stability and governance, often does not
provide the opportunity for quick advancement that Stars require.

Many will
find my omission of Stars from middle Management to be disconcerting. My
experience is that while Stars tend to be promoted into management, their
short attention span, desire for rapid change, and hunger for recognition
often cause them to become unhappy in the role. By all means, attract a Star
to the top rung of the organization, but encourage the steady, reliable
Second-chairs to lead the various teams.

Why no
space for Stars at the Entry-level and First Promotion rungs of the ladder?
At this stage, people need to be demonstrating that they are capable of high
quality, repeatable & desirable work. Encouraging the development of Stars
too early can cause the next wave of a contracts organization to devolve
into glory-hounding and interpersonal conflict. This runs counter to
increasingly high expectations of Generation Y, but this is another
challenge that must be faced.

Remember,
Stars are valuable because they shake things up, challenge the status quo,
and create great new opportunities for the company. They can also be a royal
pain because of just those traits. The successful contracts organization
wants a core of Second-chair performers who enjoy the job, leavened with Stars to put
the fire in the organization.

Summary

Assess the
impact of automation on your organization. Do you have too many people with
the wrong skills? Worse, are they refusing to recognize this and evolve?

Realize
that significant outsourcing and offshoring of the contracts & procurement
function will be a reality over the next 10 years. Plan your team’s career
tracks accordingly.

Realign job
codes and “top-out” points to reflect the relationship of job functions to
your corporate mission, as well as where you believe the team & profession
are headed. Communicate these as realities, and give people time to meet the
new expectations.

Some people
either will not be able to adapt fast enough, or will demonstrate a marked
lack of enthusiasm. They need to go before they become Victims and poison
the team.

Enthusiasm
& initiative count, so individuals must be encouraged to try. The team,
however, needs people who can meet the needs of the company today. Balancing
between individual and team needs is why you earn the big bucks.

Every
organization needs Stars and Second-chairs, your value add is setting the
ratios, helping Second-chairs become Stars, and avoiding the proliferation
of Victims.

The year is 1914.France and Germany have prepared for the Great War for decades.The day comes, and France has the wrong guns, wrong strategy, wrong training, and wrong technology.Even wrong generals up to the very highest level.

From the very first minute, the fact that Germany has immense advantage is obvious.The French misinterpret the German advance.The Belgians try to warn them, but the French Generals are so enamored of
their plans that the warnings fall on deaf ears.Battles start, and the advantages of German industry, technology,
training, manpower and strategy are obvious, to all but the French.

And so, for weeks, the French lose.Battle after battle, mile after mile of ground.They retreat, defeated, ever closer to their capital city.Generals are replaced, and still the French lose.Plans are altered, and nothing works.Allies arrive, and still the relentless error of the French causes them
to lose miles of ground and tens of thousands of lives.

At the center of it all stands one man, General
Joffre, leader of the French forces since the first days of the war.This is the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.Or is he?

Joffre’s greatest weakness is his
steadfastness, his refusal to change plans until disaster is upon the French
army.But this steadfastness, wrong
though it was during the opening days of the War, is exactly what is needed to
give the French a chance to turn debacle into survival.

This is the concept that today's executives must
realize.The steady, focused, calm
leader of people is exactly the type who tends to thrive during crisis.They were not the right managers for a year ago, and many companies
passed them over for glossier, sexier, ‘new-economy’ managers.In the new-economy, leadership was mostly about form over substance.The ability to motivate, cajole, recruit and spin was
paramount.Investors and analysts
were blind to execution, they wanted hype, and new-economy managers delivered,
in spades.

Leaders who focused on long-term vision,
team-building, interpersonal skills, and fostering a sense of loyalty were
portrayed as dinosaurs.Meanwhile,
the selfish, ‘me-first’ style of manager was absolutely the right individual
for the bubble.

In case anyone missed it, the bubble has burst.The enemy is pouring over the border, and the new-economy is in full
retreat before the forces of reality.Managers
who were successful at spin and shuffling projects are panicked.Message boards are full of employees wanting vision, empathy, open
communication, and focus – in short, they want leadership, and the successful
new-economy managers are not delivering.

What does work now is focus.General Joffre went to bed at 10pm every night, he relied
upon his staff, and he admonished subordinate commanders for losing their nerve.Many misinterpreted his imperturbability as stupidity, believing that he
had no idea of the magnitude of the disaster.Again, during the opening days of the War this may have been true.But, as the full scope of the disaster unfolded, Joffre was
the calm, steady, focused hand that the officers responsible for the troops
needed.

This is a critical point.Senior executives very rarely connect with ‘the troops.’
They connect with senior and line managers on a daily basis, and tend to see
front-line workers only at awards ceremonies. Line managers are in
far more frequent contact, and they magnify the mood of the managers above them
in the hierarchy.If the big boss
is panicked, the first-tier managers will amplify that panic and scare the hell
out of the front-line people delivering value to the Customers.By the same token, new-economy managers who try the same
seat-of-the-pants spin control that worked during the boom will communicate that
paucity of ideas through the line-managers to the troops.

That’s when the network printers start spewing
resumes.

Senior executives in this business climate must
reconnect with the people. Executives
must put aside that Rolodex of analysts, spin doctors, coaches and gurus
– and call their direct reports. The
topic? Self assessment. Everyone who manages in this environment
must ask, "Are we the type of new-economy managers who have valued
form over substance?Have we
engaged in ‘business development’ and ‘brand management’ while the core
competencies of our business suffered?"
Managers who succeeded during the bubble will usually find that to some
degree they had to be new-economy form over substance managers.The question then becomes, "Are we the right people to lead now?"

The old adage "Ask yourself before the
Board asks you" is even more true today.

So, what to do with the new-economy risk takers?First and foremost, do not fire them!These people will be critical when the economy booms again.They are also the risk takers who will explore new lines of business and
form new alliances.While they
might not be right for COO or CFO posts, they need to be put aside for the
future.Create a post-recovery team, with conditions under which they
will shine.The new-economy was all
about personal success, find ways to motivate these people, and they will become
a secret weapon during the inevitable upturn.

Whatever the outcome of the self assessment,
there are common-sense things that leaders are doing right now:

Kill
Sexy Initiatives That Do Not Deliver Real Results

These projects are usually obvious:acronym laden, analysis heavy, b-school exercises that always include
the word ‘Customer’ but are more about charts and graphs than delivery.Kill all of them today, drive a stake through their hearts and bury
them at the crossroads.Use the
time and energy these initiatives absorb to improve execution, morale, and
Customer contact.

Connect
with Customers, not Analysts

Customers are going through this same
self-examination. As a result, project leaders who are the best and
brightest with a great pedigree are no longer the right people to impress the
Customer. These were the spin-doctors who amazed the Customers when
times were good. Amaze Customers now with execution focused project
leaders that enable Customers to survive and thrive.

Shutter Product Lines Before Of Laying Off
Across The Board

It takes courage to lay off 10% across the
board, but it takes more courage to kill an entire product.Too often, executives reduce all divisions by a flat rate, or
focus the pain on ‘back-office’ functions that don’t seem to generate
revenue.Often, however, there is
an entire division that is under performing, obstructionist, or does not fit
with the future direction of the company.This division has to go, through layoff, outsourcing, or sale.It takes real courage to lop off an arm, but sometimes that
is the only way out of the trap – losing a few pounds just won’t do the
trick.

Your Direct Reports Must Handle Today While
You Plan For Tomorrow

General Joffre couldn’t have held the line
without a relentless focus on the fundamentals – by his subordinates.This is critical, and often overlooked when leaders are under pressure.A senior executive must ensure that the business can be stabilized,
albeit at a lower level than optimal, then leave execution to able
subordinates.The executive first
ensures the company will survive the moment, then focuses relentlessly
on the future.

Put
People First, Really

During a crisis, one temptation is to short
staff before taking other measures.The
theory is that they are the least likely to take action, because the employer
can always hold their jobs over them.What
the finance experts who advocate these cuts forget is that if the company is
to survive, it must have the goodwill of Customers and employees.When employees feel cheated, they communicate this fact to the
Customers, immediately and directly.Morale
was often not a concern of new-economy managers, but in a crisis, true leaders
take it very seriously.

Never
Assume That Support Workload Evaporates With Staff

Most companies have already slashed support
and ‘back-room’ staff and functions – there is usually very little room
left for reductions.Unfortunately,
a knee-jerk reaction for executives is to cut these departments again when
trouble threatens.Then, when
Customers are enraged at shoddy invoicing and failure to comply with
contracts, the morale of any remaining support staff plummets.Administrative overhead is difficult to compress or ‘optimize’ –
even with high technology, a clerk can still only process so many invoices in
a day.

Never
Trust HR To Determine Who Should Stay And Who Should Go

Generals always plan for the last war, and HR
departments always staff for the last boom.Look at the job descriptions that the HR department is using; they will
probably have very little relationship to what front-line people are actually
doing.Also, realize that after
any lay-off, the Great Workload Shuffle begins.Mid-level managers who made assumptions that workload would move to
other departments cut too deeply in the wrong areas.This is where all of that business process engineering navel
gazing can be put to good use.Always
try to make a change for the better, which incidentally involves fewer people.

Be
Relentlessly Compassionate

The news is full of arrogant dot-coms having
lavish parties during layoffs, or paying millions of dollars to executives who
have manifestly failed to meet expectations.A leader thinks carefully about the perception that investors, workers,
and their community will form around actions during a crisis.Give people time to adjust to new roles or responsibilities.Recognize that none of the rules of human interaction disappear during
tough business times, in fact they become far more important.A leader puts their personal stress aside, and focuses on others.Finally, remember that what was 'quirky' but appropriate during the
boom is front-page news during the bust.

Be
Visible, Every Day

The worst thing a leader can do is hide.Every employee needs to have a sense that the people at the top have a
plan. If those top people disappear, it
is hard for the front-line people to build that confidence in a vacuum.
Hiding behind inspiring emails sent through administrative assistants is the
absolute worst. Some consultants advise that the senior
executives be invisible around layoffs, and this may be good advice.Do not, however, fly to Switzerland, go skiing, or participate in some
other highly visible activity.Either
be totally visible, or disappear without a trace – never let the employees
believe that executives are partying while they are worried about their jobs.

Find The High-Touch, Execution Focused
Managers, Then Get Them Moving

This is a hard pill for most executives to
swallow.It implies that
retention and promotion decisions made during the bubble were wrong.They weren’t, but failing to change the team to meet the
times is the worst error an executive can make.Communicate that these are different times, and different leaders can
achieve better results.Change a
few of the executive team at the same time, and eliminate the ‘hangers on’
to executive management.All of
those high-potential individuals belong in the trenches, saving the business
– not holding the coats of executives.

Focus, Focus, Focus

Stay relentlessly focused on rebuilding.If the management team has a short attention span, it will not survive.In the bubble, it was possible to pursue a dozen different initiatives
and hope that the long shots would pay off.Now that the bubble has burst, it is time to look at return on
investment, and make the hard choices that will enable the business to
survive.Trying to balance too many initiatives is even more damaging
than pursuing too few.

Finally, realize that the leaders who will
survive the hard times are not the ones to lead during the next upturn.General Joffre did not win the war; he bought time for the French and
their allies to learn the hard lessons.When
the time came, he was replaced by a successful, optimistic risk-taker.This is the way leadership works, no one person is right for every time
and circumstance.If the
risk-takers were encouraged and kept with the company, this is their time to
re-emerge.

The trick for senior leaders is always to put
the right people, in the right place, at the right time.It is amazing how often we forget that.